Sunday, January 28, 2007

John Kerry Reporting For Duty Once Again

Unfortunately, Kerry's duty these days includes offending the very Americans he claimed to want to serve two years ago and misrepresenting the facts about his own country. After Kerry's claim of a "botched joke" pretty much did in his potential 2008 Presidential run, he now seems to be in a full spiral downhill. This week the "John Kerry Self-Destruction Tour" stopped off in Davos, Switzerland, where the world's leaders are gathering for the World Economic Forum.

Kerry, while sharing the stage with the former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami during a discussion entitled, "The Future of the Middle East," took the opportunity on foreign soil nonetheless, to blast away at American foreign policy. Kerry said, "So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East - in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today." He added, "When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy."

What's most hypocritical and duplicitous about this statement is that Kerry actually favored not ratifying the Kyoto treaty, along with the rest of the Senate in 1995. In a unanimous 95-0 vote, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated the following:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

Additionally, Bill Clinton never submitted Kyoto to the Senate to be ratified and even Al Gore admitted that he would not ratify an ammendment until it had been written to include developing nations as well.

So basically, Kerry voted against it before he voted for it. Duplicity and Hypocricy - John Kerry style. So to recap - Kerry lied and whined - all on foreign soil. What a great American!

You simply do not criticize America on foreign soil to a group of internationals. This has been an unwritten rule of etiquitte and patriotism for years. This is part of the reason why the Dixie Chicks have been marginalized. It's inappropriate and it shows a lack of class. Period.

I am constantly amazed at how Dan T. immediately jumps to the defense of anyone that criticizes the U.S. He sure does not give his Christian brothers and sisters that much courtesy.In my opinion, with all we have to be thankful for in this country, the least we could do would be to acknowledge our blessings and thank our Heavenly Father for allowing us to be born here.

On the other hand, I'll agree with you where you said, "What's most hypocritical and duplicitous about this statement is that Kerry actually favored not ratifying the Kyoto treaty"

I'm not defending Kerry, in general as I don't have much respect for him as a leader. Rather, I was questioning why his making a statement that was true was problematic.

To be sure, I would criticize what actions my country took that were wrong wherever I was. You know why mom2? Exactly because I LOVE my country and will not sit quietly by while some leaders take her down paths of great immorality. I am thankful to have been born here and will always speak out against oppressive, ungodly behavior by my leaders because of that.

Again, you wouldn't call the prophets "ungrateful," or criticize them for being too critical of Israel...

John Kerry is not a prophet of God - not even close. Also, we are talking about the U.S. here, not Israel. Bringing up prophets in Israel is a red herring, not to mention a silly way to explain away Kerry's very unpatriotic tirade in a foreign country. Again, the time honored tradition in this country is to not criticize the U.S. outside its borders. What Kerry said was not necessary and it appears that he took the opportunity to bash Bush to a group of people who would be receptive to it. It was poor judgement. If you can't see that or don't know American history, I'm sorry, but don't use silly arguments and red herrings just to disagree with me.

"Again, the time honored tradition in this country is to not criticize the U.S. outside its borders. What Kerry said was not necessary..."

I would disagree. I think a majority of the US thinks it IS very necessary for us to begin to humble ourselves and admit it when we make mistakes. To that degree, Kerry was speaking prophetically.

The consequences of our bluster and "patriotic" blather of NOT criticizing ourselves is that we appear to be a rogue nation, placing ourselves above laws and the concerns of the world. Which, in turn, helps the terrorists get traction.

I'm sure you may disagree with that, but that's what a goodly number of Christians and patriotic Americans think. We voted in a new congress last November and want to be represented for a change.

You must speak the truth of God as you understand it. I must speak the Truth of God as I understand it.

Dan, I've been reading your comments too long to be influenced by them at all, but I've also noticed the loopholes you always leave for yourself and I've seen you use them, time after time. Back to John Kerry, I agree with D.R. that no American should go to another country and criticize the U.S. They do enough here and here is where the elections are held, so what is the purpose of going to another country to talk down our country. This is the freedom we have that a LOT of countries don't have, if they want to live. If you don't like it here, leave.

Dan, Do you think you would be appreciated if you were to go to another country and tell them what is wrong with their country? According to your thinking, since you know best, you would be doing them a great favor to go enlighten them. Our elections are for our own country and I thank the Lord for the freedom to go vote. Using one of your tactics, how do you think your wife would feel if you went around talking about any problems that might exist in your marriage. Would that help?Common sense tells us that there are common courtesies that we should extend to our elected officials that were elected by a majority. You will have the chance to remove that official when the next election comes around, but for the time being pray for them.I am not the one complaining about my country, so why should I leave.

I would prefer that you respect the freedoms that we have to vote and elect our officials and honor the majority vote. You have your majority in the House and Senate and I have not heard the outcry about voter fraud, disfranchised whites, faulty voting machines, etc. that we have listened to for 6 years by the former minority. You are welcome to your opinion, but obnoxiousness is not necessary. Count your blessings and you will find they far outweigh those that any other citizens of other countries enjoy. Have a good day, Dan! Lighten up and enjoy your fellow Christians! We are blessed! Thank you, Jesus!

I dunno. But I'd suppose that the prophets during the time of the captivity who condemned Israel did so in the presence of Babylonians.

Ezekiel, for instance:

Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe [be] to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: [but] ye feed not the flock.

34:4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up [that which was] broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.

Was it directed towards the Babylonians? I'll have to say that I don't know but it seems to be directed towards the Israelis.

Nonetheless, there is no biblical injunction against speaking against your country in another country. I can think of legitimate civic reasons for doing so, as I've already noted.

You don't believe it yourself? Fine. We can disagree. I think it an extremely wise and godly thing to do - for Christian reasons as well as just plain civic reasons.

I don't think there's a biblical injunction against criticizing your own country to other people, but I believe that, because the OT prophets didn't apparently do such things, it's somewhat of a stretch for people to argue that Kerry is doing what they did.

(Honestly, it strikes me as noteworthy that it's typically on the left that we see Christians describing politicians and political writers as speaking prophetically. I think Gingrich and Steyn are saying some very shrewd, very important things about the issues of the day -- things that need to be said, things that aren't be said by a lot of other people -- but I can't see myself or even other politically conservative Christians asserting that they're speaking "prophetically." And I'm sure there would be some who would level the charge of "theocrat" if we did.)

Again, I'm not sure that it's always morally impermissible or even in poor taste to criticize your own country on foreign soil, and yet...

You would be right to say that our duty to God and Truth trumps our personal loyalty even to our family, but there is something unseemly about a person who badmouths his family in front of other people even if the criticism is valid.

A valid point, I'd say, Bubba. I probably would not go over to another country to badmouth our postal system or our driving on the right side of the road or most other policies. But when policies have the potential to hurt and/or kill thousands - tens of thousands - the world, THEN the obligation to the others overrides the obligation to the nation or the family.

I understand that you may not think Bush's pre-emptive invasion meets that dire criteria. Many of us do, though, and must obey our conscience.

Dan, Do you expect the terrorists to give us any advance knowledge of their thoughts or plans before they try another major explosion killing thousands? I don't expect them to come over and tell us what bad people they are either. When the fog clears from around you, I hope someday you can see things more clearly. :-)

You talk about Kerry's speech here as if it was altruistic and based on his convictions that he must speak. I just don't buy it and there's nothing there to suggest such. He as asked to participate in a discussion and he goes off and landblasts American foreign policy as if that was altogether necessary. He wasn't being prophetic and I don't think he was doing it out of conviction. He didn't have to say what he did, and he was deceptive in the midst of it (which again undercuts the argument that he was speaking out of conviction).

I think you are projecting your personal convictions upon him and assuming he had the country's best interests at heart. I just don't think you have any evidence of such and I think that he shouldn't have done it either way. It's not as if his speech was Reagan's "Berlin Wall" speech or anything. Nothing he said was memorable, except for the fact that he lied and called America an "international pariah." I just don't understand why your defending a liar.

"He wasn't being prophetic and I don't think he was doing it out of conviction."

You know, in his SOTU speech last year, Bush said, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." and recognized this as a problem.

Do you know what I said when I heard that? AMEN! and Hallelujah!

Does that mean I think Bush is a prophet? ppphhh!

Does that mean that I think he spoke prophetically when he said those words? Yes.

I take my prophetic speaking where I can find it. I don't trust Kerry to be a man of integrity nor do I think he has shown himself to be a great leader - quite the opposite.

That doesn't mean I can't sound an Amen if he says something right. And, again, I don't care where he was when he spoke it. I think you don't understand how serious a threat I think Bush's policies are to world peace.

Again, I know you don't agree with me, but if this is what I think, then what else can I do but support prophetic words and actions wherever they come from?

Dan, do you think you may be devaluing the word "prophetic" by apparently applying it to whatever political speech you agree with?

C.S. Lewis wrote that, like the word "gentleman" before it, the word "Christian" has been drained of some of its meaning by the deliberate attempt to be loose with the word's meaning. That's bad enough; there's no need to drain another word of its specific meaning.

And, frankly, it seems like people do this as a cheap rhetorical stunt: "John Kerry's speaking prophetically, so who are you to dare criticize him?"

Speaking "prophetically" means more than simply saying things that you like, Dan.

To quote Lewis, "When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object."

Since it would have been otherwise perfectly clear what your attitude is about what Kerry said, there's no need for you to claim (ridiculously, in my opinion) that Kerry spoke "prophetically". Since misusing the word cheapens it, there is good reason for you not to use it every time someone says something you like.

Paul was not interested merely in the ethical principles of religion or of ethics. On the contrary, he was interested in the redeeming work of Christ and its effect upon us. His primary interest was in Christian doctrine, and Christian doctrine not merely in its presuppositions but at its centre.
-- J. Greshem Machen.